Minutus

Oh gee, I'm trying to be very careful here as I don't want to contradict or criticise anybody but would like to say something about intuition - and this post is certainly not about Jean but just about thoughts from what she said.

I want to tackle the fact that intuitive prescribing is painted as a higher form of practice and something to be admired.

Often we do 'sense' the needed remedy but prescriptions based upon intuition alone rather than on symptom similarity is shockingly unreliable and error prone.

If it were not so, those who prescribe in this manner would be winning lotteries left right and centre, but they're not, so why aren't they being called to account for what they are doing?

Judging by cases that come to me after having been to an intuitive prescriber - potentially a biased sample - the remedy has often been obvious but the case was not taken well enough for the first prescriber to see it.

Focusing on the 'mentals' of the case is equally unreliable yet again, it is often portrayed is a superior way to practice. All it does is reduce the time available for examining other symptoms symptoms in the case, causing the prescriber to choose a remedy from a partial picture.

Intuition and sense does have a role (as Jean demonstrated) but if someone is drawn to solely or mostly to using intuition for prescribing purposes, it suggests that more work is needed in learning how to take the case and analyse the symptoms.

Just saying ...
--
Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield

Hello Fran,,
The real weakness of intuitive prescribing is that if it was possible we would see multiple prescribers come up with the same rx. But it lacks any reproducibility. And the "error prone" tendency that you speak of is because largely without a doubt those who prescribe this way are also engaging in the very loose and subjective parameters of the doctrine of signatures. Too many times we see this sort of case taking and analysis in which the case is taken via viewing our MM through the lens of our own skewed experiences, ie. the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet type shows. Speculation in this manner is never objective.

The case that was brought by Jean shows this clearly. She states she looked out the window and saw the cat while thinking of what to prescribe...then why not Sil. as it is the primary source for the glass window that she was looking out, or perhaps any of the fauna that was probably present, or hydrogen or oxygen? The list could be lengthy. And to espouse that this is a good way to prescribe after just 4 days is...well telling.

And now wouldn't everyone who looked out the window focus on or have their intuition engaged with a slew of results?

And I think that what many might possibly call intuitive could not be possible without a fair study of our MM. I mean if intuitive prescribing was a "constant" and was governed at all by any of the rules, laws that would make it reproducible by all, then it could be done by anyone without any knowledge at all of the Homeopathic process. One could simply engage in a laying on of hands or a dowsing rod to choose from a collection of rx's. after some pondering, meditation or having a cat cross our field of view.

And lastly they are not being called to account for so many bad or ineffective prescriptions because; 1, we are operating currently under the guise and pretense of total political correctness which hinders legitimate professional criticism and 2; the current Homeopathic community is so smitten with the new agey re-invention of Homeopathy that things like critical thinking and analysis of ones own prescriptions, has consistently fallen by the wayside.

I for one am glad that there are no intuitive structural engineers, orthopedic surgeons etc.

All the best,
Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Fran Sheffield wrote:

On 22/10/2011 9:21 PM, RichardS wrote:
This is off at a bit of a tangent but this is why I think the structure of homeopathy has to be protected - if what we do is not reproducible by those who come after us - it what we do cannot be handed on and successfully practised by those just entering homeopathy, there is no long-term benefit and we are probably failing to meet our 'higher calling'. This is why it is so important for our practices to be based on unchanging principles and laws so that they can be passed on - none of us are going to be here forever.
So, this may start some useful and interesting discussion. It is easy for us to criticise each other but how should we apply productive critical thinking to our practices - those of others AND our own - and in a way that shines a light rather than destroys. How do we productively assess what we are doing and how can we improve what we do? Any thoughts?
Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield

I am sure to get one of your vituperative responses here Rik, but healing is more art than science no matter how
much mechanical control humans try to place on it. This has been a conflict for 100's of years. We can create a
paradigm to follow but without 'intuition' or other subjective perceptions we do miss the case. With all the rigid or
clearly defined protocols that allopathy sets up, when you talk with doctors they will all very often tell you that they
'just had a feeling' about something and it led to success. Contrarily, all too often doctors hide behind the text book
protocols and watch their work miserably fail and patients die. I had a dentist who screwed up my teeth and when
confronted he glibly stated that he was following the book. In other words he was not responsible for missing significant
structural requirements in my mouth and he refused to listen to me when I tried to give him some critical information.
He was forced to return over $6000 to me. My current dentist is a big gadget/techie guy. But he is an artist and his
work is excellent because of this level of sensibility and intuition that he brings to his work.
I know this rankes you but so be it. I find your effort to create rigid guidelines when dealing with humans who are way
too complicated for such mechanized understanding quite offputting. Trying to send me out the door doesn't make you
right. But such reactions sure make me wonder how you can even deal with the subtleties of humans.
BTW, it was interesting to me to discover years ago how the police dept's and the stock market moghuls would hire
people to train in the development of intuition. While refusing to admit the need for this level of relationship to their
work spheres in public, these people clearly know that what works more times than not is being able to tune in on
another level and to trust those 'feelings.'
t

Just imagine something went badly wrong and the matter was taken before the judge.
OK Homeopath - on what basis did you prescribe a remedy for this person? - asks the Judge.
Your Honour - I saw a cat walk across the yard and thought of Lac Fel.
I wonder what his judgement would be?

Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fran Sheffield
Sent: 22 October 2011 11:44
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Intuition vs Symptoms: WAS (Fluid in the inner ear)
This is off at a bit of a tangent but this is why I think the structure of homeopathy has to be protected - if what we do is not reproducible by those who come after us - it what we do cannot be handed on and successfully practised by those just entering homeopathy, there is no long-term benefit and we are probably failing to meet our 'higher calling'. This is why it is so important for our practices to be based on unchanging principles and laws so that they can be passed on - none of us are going to be here forever.
And lastly they are not being called to account for so many bad or ineffective prescriptions because; 1, we are operating currently under the guise and pretense of total political correctness which hinders legitimate professional criticism...
So, this may start some useful and interesting discussion. It is easy for us to criticise each other but how should we apply productive critical thinking to our practices - those of others AND our own - and in a way that shines a light rather than destroys. How do we productively assess what we are doing and how can we improve what we do? Any thoughts?

Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2092/4566 - Release Date: 10/21/11

Hello Fran,
I think that defining "cure" would be a good place to start both individually and for the community. This term has evolved to meet an ever lower standard of Homeopathic care in the last 5 years or so.
I see it when proctoring cases quite often and hear it when Homeopaths recite cases at conferences etc.
For instance I recently had a detailed case laid out before a study group from a seasoned practitioner who talked at length about how well this case was moving. The case was in her hands for 22 mos, she had tried 6 rx's. gotten repeated aggravations from some and no results from others. So as we listened it occurred to me that she had never really defined the chief complaint. So I asked and she said that it was hypothyroidism. This pt. required a daily dose of thyroid meds and so I asked if she was still on the medication..she was. So then I said what were the sx's she was complaining of regarding her thyroid. She said very low energy, hyperhydrosis etc. And she insisted on only speaking about what got better or saw some improvement. This is classic omission bias. I finally asked if her idea for rectifying this case involved alleviating the pt entirely of the need for her meds. She said she didn't think that it was as important as a few trivial sx's that she was insistent upon making the focus of the case.
This unfortunately is not the exception anymore. There is a terrible amount of confirmation bias in Homeopathy today.
So I think defining cure might be a good place to start.

Any thoughts?

Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Fran Sheffield wrote:

Hello Tamara,
Did your dentist look out the office window and base your treatment on what he saw. Did he pick techniques based on a hunch. Was there a laying on of hands? Nope he took what he learned through his time in school and practice and simply expanded on experience. Which basic principles of dentistry, surgery etc. did he abandon during his oral artistry?
Further how many dr's go with their hunch and have non success?
Th real question here which I think is being missed is that you are under the impression that I think that intuition plays no role at all. Quite the contrary actually, but that is a separate post. But do not mix up and use interchangeably the ideas of intuition and art. They are not one in the same.

And I think there is no legitimate reason for you to wondering how I deal with the subtleties of humans...I'm doing it right now.

All the best, (zero sarcasm intended)
Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "tamarque@..." wrote:

I think the essential question today is whether homoeopaths see themselves as physicians using an alternative medical therapeutic to allopathy, or whether they see themselves as healers, very possibly adding other modalities such as laying on of hands, intuitive or meditative prescribing etc. Then we need to answer which group Hahnemann belonged to...

I think Hahnemann saw himself as a physician first and foremost. Although he did mention some elements that involved laying on of hands, connection with a sympathetic person etc., he speaks to us as a physician and these references are more the exception than the rule.

Part of the confusion in the discussions on this list as that some homoeopaths see themselves as physicians (and some are also conventionally qualified) and some as healers - so some want discussion, courses and guidance as physicians, and some want a stronger emphasis on spiritual aspects of healing which they see as central to homoeopathy.

Although I'm not an MD, I see the "physician" direction as being more true to source and giving more certainty in prescribing, and study/teach/work in that direction, and this has been my experience although I went through training within the "healer" direction as well. Within this direction, homoeopathic treatment is seen as a medical intervention, rather than an aid to healing - which de-emphasizes the spiritual and emphasizes the need for good, clear case-taking, prescription and case-management.

Vera
------------------------------------
Vera Resnick IHM DHom Med (Lic)
Homoeopath
054-4640736
e-mail: vera.homeopath@gmail.com

Intuition without knowledge is not real intuition, it is more guesswork....intuition is a "brain shortcut" where many pieces of information are subconsciously gathered and analysed, as if taking a case but at a non "awake" level; the result of the analysis then either appears or, like with the cat situation, needs a small trigger to bring it to mind.
Then you do reverse engineering, asking "why did I think of that remedy?" and you can easily find it by looking at the consultation notes.
That type of work allows the elimination of conscious or cultural/philosophical filters that we all have and sometimes make us eliminate a symptom, a sign that we do not want or like to see but is at the core of the case.
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

Why separate and categorise?
I am an MD, I am a scientist, I am a sceptic, yet I learn and use each and every possible tool I can get my hands on according to the need of the patient. For crying out loud, I just completed the Advanced Pranic Healing training....me!
We seem to forget and confuse a few things.
First, the patient is what matters, not the technique or the belief or the practitioner's preferences.
Second (very old discussion resurging here) is to know exactly what we do and what we talk about, being able to accurately pinpoint and define what we use, how and why: homeopathy is homeopathy, manual medicine is manual medicine, herbalism is herbalism, etc,....there are interconnections, but the differences are clear.
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com